GR 132320; (September, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 132320 September 7, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CONRADO OJERIO, FREDDIE SEQUID and GERARDO OJERIO (At large), accused, CONRADO OJERIO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On the evening of November 14, 1993, in Barangay Narra, San Manuel, Pangasinan, Romeo Marcelo was conversing with his wife Carolina and her relatives in front of their house. Their conversation was interrupted by the sound of footsteps on dried leaves. The victim stood up and, along with his mother-in-law Aida Diaz, shone a flashlight toward the noise. They saw accused-appellant Conrado Ojerio and two others, all armed with long firearms, standing about four to five meters away. Without any provocation, the assailants immediately fired at Romeo Marcelo, hitting him on the head, chest, and abdomen, which caused his instantaneous death. The prosecution relied on the eyewitness accounts of Carolina Marcelo and Jaime Diaz, who positively identified the accused.
The defense interposed denial and alibi. Accused-appellant, a member of the Philippine Navy, claimed he was on guard duty at Fort Bonifacio, Makati, from 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM on the day of the incident. He presented a “Morning Report” from his unit to support his claim that there was no change in the status of personnel, implying he could not have been in Pangasinan. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of Murder, qualified by treachery, and sentenced him to Reclusion Perpetua. The court acquitted him of the separate charge for illegal possession of firearms.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant of Murder based on the prosecution’s evidence and in rejecting his defense of alibi.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification by eyewitnesses, who had no ill motive to falsely testify, prevails over the defense of denial and alibi. The witnesses clearly saw the accused-appellant’s face when their flashlight illuminated him, and their proximity of four to five meters allowed for a reliable identification. The Court found no material inconsistencies in their testimonies that would impair their credibility.
Regarding the defense of alibi, the Court ruled it must be established with clear and convincing evidence that the accused was so far away that he could not have been physically present at the crime scene. The “Morning Report” presented by the defense merely indicated no change in personnel status; it did not conclusively prove accused-appellant’s presence at his post in Makati at the exact time of the shooting in Pangasinan. Alibi is inherently weak and cannot prevail over positive identification. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated, as the attack was sudden and unexpected, depriving the victim of any chance to defend himself. The penalty of Reclusion Perpetua was affirmed. However, the civil indemnity was modified: actual damages were reduced to P10,000.00, supported by a receipt, and moral damages were reduced to P50,000.00 to conform with jurisprudence.